3
$\begingroup$

In these notes on page 4 the author says that if a $2d$-dimensional phase space has $d$ conserved quantities $F_{\mu}$ that Poisson commute, then $H$ can be written as a function of the $F_{\mu}$. Why should this be the case?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I) Lemma: On a $2d$-dimensional symplectic manifold $(M,\{\cdot,\cdot\})$, there can at most be $d$ independent quantities that Poisson commute.

Indirect proof: Assume that $$\text{There exist }d+1 \text{ independent quantities } (F^1, \ldots , F^{d+1}) \text{ that Poisson commute.} \tag{1}$$ Consider a fixed point $p\in M$. (It does not matter which.) Define a $d+1$-dimensional subspace $$W~:=~{\rm span}_{\mathbb{R}} \{ \mathrm{d}F^1_p, \ldots, \mathrm{d}F^{d+1}_p \} ~\subseteq~T^{\ast}_pM. \tag{2}$$ The perpendicular complement $W^{\perp}$ wrt. the symplectic structure is then $d-1$ dimensional. From assumption (1) it follows that $$W ~\subseteq~ W^{\perp} \tag{2} $$ is an isotropic subspace. Contradiction. $\Box$

II) Returning to OP's question: If $H$ is not a function of the $F$'s, then there would be $d+1$ independent quantities that Poisson commute. Contradiction.

See also this related Phys.SE post.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I had a go at showing this, and I think I'm on the right track, but I couldn't finish it off. I've posted my work as an answer - would you mind taking a quick look at it? $\endgroup$ – preferred_anon Oct 29 '17 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ I updated the answer with a proof. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Oct 29 '17 at 19:17
0
$\begingroup$

Theorem: Let $M$ be a $2d$-dimensional phase space, and $F_{1},\ldots F_{d+1}:M \to \mathbb{R}$ be functionals that Poisson commute at some point $P$. Then the set $$\left\{\frac{dF_{1}}{d\mathbf{x}},\ldots \frac{dF_{d+1}}{d\mathbf{x}}\right\}$$ is linearly dependent at $p$, where $$\frac{df}{d\mathbf{x}}:=\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial q_{1}}\ldots \frac{\partial f}{\partial p_{n}}\right)$$ and $(q_{1},\ldots q_{n},p_{1},\ldots ,p_{n})$ are coordinates on $M$.

Lemma: The set $$\left\{\frac{dF_{1}}{d\mathbf{x}},\ldots \frac{dF_{d}}{d\mathbf{x}}\right\}$$ if and only if the set $$\left\{\frac{dF_{1}}{d\mathbf{q}},\ldots \frac{dF_{d}}{d\mathbf{q}}\right\}$$ is linearly independent.

Proof of Lemma: One direction is trivial. For the other, suppose $\left\{\frac{dF_{i}}{d\mathbf{x}}\right\}$ is linearly independent, and $$\sum_{i=1}^{d}\alpha_{i}\frac{dF_{i}}{d\mathbf{q}} = 0$$ Taking the dot product, $$\sum_{i=1}^{d} \alpha_{i}\frac{dF_{i}}{d\mathbf{q}}\cdot \frac{dF_{j}}{d\mathbf{p}} = 0$$ $\{F_{i},F_{j}\} = 0$, so $$\frac{dF_{i}}{d\mathbf{p}}\cdot \frac{dF_{j}}{d\mathbf{q}} = \frac{dF_{i}}{d\mathbf{q}}\cdot \frac{dF_{j}}{d\mathbf{p}}$$ So $$\left(\sum_{i=1}^{d} \alpha_{i}\frac{dF_{i}}{d\mathbf{p}}\right)\cdot \frac{dF_{j}}{d\mathbf{q}} = 0$$ I'd like to deduce that the vector in brackets is $0$ (since then we can inherit the linear independence of $\frac{dF_{i}}{d\mathbf{x}}$). Of course, we have that it is orthogonal to $d$ vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, but if we don't know they're linearly independent I don't think we can deduce anything.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.